French v. Cooper

Supreme Court of New Jersey

French v. Cooper

43 A.2d 880, 133 N.J.L. 246, 1945 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 79

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedSeptember 24, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.2d 880 (French v. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

French v. Cooper, 43 A.2d 880, 133 N.J.L. 246, 1945 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 79 (N.J. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

Prosecutor, Edward E. French, is the owner of premises at the corner of North Street and Atlantic Avenue in Ocean City. Desiring to erect a canvas and wooden awning supported by iron piping, he made application to the building inspector who refused a permit. On appeal, the Board of Adjustment sustained the refusal. Certiorari was allowed to review this action.

The refusal of a building permit is based upon a provision of the zoning ordinance of Ocean City, section 5 (h) : “No fixed metal, wood or cloth awning shall extend more than five feet (5') from any main building wall and must not be less than seven feet (7') in the clear above the sidewalk or boardwalk grade, and shall not be supported from or by any post fixture or device resting on or attached to any street or boardwalk,” and a further provision “A front yard shall be a set-back of not less than 10' on Atlantic Avenue and 4' on *247 North Street, from the front or street property line to the porch or nearest part of the house or building.”

The sketch returned with the record discloses that the building proper has the necessary set-hacks on both Atlantic Avenue and North Street and in the absence of proof to the contrary we hold that the awning is not a part of the building. There is no evidence that it is permanently attached to the building and it is at most an adjunct thereto; i. e., added but not essentially a part thereof.

It is settled that a municipality lias no power to limit the use to which property may be put unless the regulation is designed to promote public: health, safety and general welfare. Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 106 N. J. L. 183. We fail to see in what respect the erection of this awning can adversely affect public health, safety or general welfare. 'File absence of a brief on behalf of respondents suggests that they, too, experience the same cpiandary. The fact that nearby property owners have expressed themselves as favoring the proposed erection and that none objects, weighs against the reasonableness of the decision to refuse Ihe permit. Prosecutor is entitled to his permit and costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

Prosecutor, Edward E. French, is the owner of premises at the corner of North Street and Atlantic Avenue in Ocean City. Desiring to erect a canvas and wooden awning supported by iron piping, he made application to the building inspector who refused a permit. On appeal, the Board of Adjustment sustained the refusal. Certiorari was allowed to review this action.

The refusal of a building permit is based upon a provision of the zoning ordinance of Ocean City, section 5 (h) : “No fixed metal, wood or cloth awning shall extend more than five feet (5') from any main building wall and must not be less than seven feet (7') in the clear above the sidewalk or boardwalk grade, and shall not be supported from or by any post fixture or device resting on or attached to any street or boardwalk,” and a further provision “A front yard shall be a set-back of not less than 10' on Atlantic Avenue and 4' on *247 North Street, from the front or street property line to the porch or nearest part of the house or building.”

The sketch returned with the record discloses that the building proper has the necessary set-hacks on both Atlantic Avenue and North Street and in the absence of proof to the contrary we hold that the awning is not a part of the building. There is no evidence that it is permanently attached to the building and it is at most an adjunct thereto; i. e., added but not essentially a part thereof.

It is settled that a municipality lias no power to limit the use to which property may be put unless the regulation is designed to promote public: health, safety and general welfare. Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 106 N. J. L. 183. We fail to see in what respect the erection of this awning can adversely affect public health, safety or general welfare. 'File absence of a brief on behalf of respondents suggests that they, too, experience the same cpiandary. The fact that nearby property owners have expressed themselves as favoring the proposed erection and that none objects, weighs against the reasonableness of the decision to refuse Ihe permit. Prosecutor is entitled to his permit and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.2d 880, 133 N.J.L. 246, 1945 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-cooper-nj-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack